First‐year university science and engineering students’ understanding of plagiarism

Yeo, Shelley

doi:10.1080/07294360701310813

Cited by 139 publications

(119 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[29] This result is consistent with those of Fierz & colleagues (2014) [30] and Broom et al (2010) [31] who expressed concerns about different forms of plagiarism. Findings of the current study hence, agree with studies by Introna et al (2003), [32] Ma, Lu, Turner and Wan (2007) [33] as well as Yeo (2007) [34] who conducted their studies on students' understanding of the concept of plagiarism and stated that their level of understanding is still limited.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Implementing plagiarism awareness workshop to nursing faculty members, Damanhour University

ElDin

Ela²

2016

JNEP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and objective: Plagiarism is defined as intentionally and without agreement presenting someone else's ideas or words, as one's own work. Plagiarism by academics occurs due to the growing pressure to publish research, in addition to increasing burden to publish in high-impact top-tier journals. The present study aims to implement a plagiarism awareness workshop to Nursing Faculty members to introduce the plagiarism concept as one of research misconducts and to compare between knowledge of Nursing faculty member pre and immediately post workshop. Methods: The study was conducted at Faculty of Nursing, Damanhour University. Subjects: The study subject included 51 working full time nursing faculty members who agreed to participate in the workshop. Study instrument: the researchers had developed a self-administered questionnaire which was designed to assess the nursing faculty member's perceptions of plagiarism. Results: The current study results showed that 55% of participants have fair knowledge about plagiarism as compared to 11.7% whom knowledge level is poor. Also, it was found that the highest percentage of participants (96.1%) was among those who refused plagiarism post workshop with a significant difference (p = .001) between responses pre and post workshop. Moreover, the highest median of change (19.23) was among age group 40-50, while the lowest median (3.23) was recorded for the age group 30-with a significant difference between groups (p = .002). Regarding the participants' titles, the highest median (20.69) was among assistant professor while the lowest median (-1.72) was among clinical instructor with a significant difference recorded (p = .050). Conclusions: The current study findings concluded significant positive changes in the level of knowledge of the participants after implementation of workshop.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Implementing plagiarism awareness workshop to nursing faculty members, Damanhour University

ElDin

Ela²

2016

JNEP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Various studies have shown the rate of cheating in university courses to ranges from 40% to 96% (e.g., McCabe and Trevino (1996), Dick et al (2003), and Yeo (2007), see Park (2003) or Ercegovac and Richardson (2004) for fairly comprehensive reviews), while the rates of detection may be as low as 1.3% (Björklund & Wenestam, 1999). The improvement of detection techniques is being aggressively undertaken, as it is believed that high rates of detection and prosecution will deter cheaters.…”

Section: Detection and Disciplinementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The final point that we would like to address is that of ensuring that students clearly understand the boundaries defined for each course, since a lack of understanding with respect to such boundaries is also a leading cause of plagiarism (Yeo, 2007;Wilkinson, 2009;Owunwanne, Rustagi, & Dada, 2010). To this end, we recommend presenting some of the scenarios of Barrett and Cox (2005) with the students (as discussed previously), to concretely demonstrate what kinds of activities are permitted in the course (this is similar to the approach advocated by Dawson and Overfield (2006)).…”

Section: Mitigating Confusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Analysis of the Effect of Mobile Learning on Lebanese Higher Education

Jabbour¹

2014

Informatics in Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present an overview of the nature of academic dishonesty with respect to computer science coursework. We discuss the efficacy of various policies for collaboration with regard to student education, and we consider a number of strategies for mitigating dishonest behaviour on computer science coursework by addressing some common causes. Computer science coursework is somewhat unique, in that there often exist ideal solutions for problems, and work may be shared and copied with very little effort. We discuss the idiosyncratic nature of how collaboration, collusion and plagiarism are defined and perceived by students, instructors and administration. After considering some of the common reasons for dishonest behaviour among students, we look at some methods that have been suggested for mitigating them. Finally, we propose several ideas for improving computer science courses in this context. We suggest emphasizing the intended learning outcomes of each assignment, providing tutorial sessions to facilitate acceptable collaboration, delivering quizzes related to assignment content after each assignment is submitted, and clarifying the boundary between collaboration and collusion in the context of each course. While this discussion is directed at the computer science community, much may apply to other disciplines as well, particularly those with a similar nature such as engineering, other sciences, or mathematics.

show abstract

“…Frequently attributable to desperation, often caused by procrastination or plain laziness forces students to resort to plagiarism because it seems easy for a student to paraphrase another author's ideas without appropriately crediting the source which supported the link between personal attitudes and self-plagiarism (Rezanejad&Rezaie, 2013;Smith, et al, 2007). Plagiarism also constituted by poor time management skills and insufficient effort or desire for efficiency (Yeo, 2007;Jones, 2011). Similarly students considering academic dishonesty as no big deal since everyone else is doing it, and the idea that they can 'get away with it' are said to be the reasons for plagiarism (Jones 2011;Kwong, Ng, Mark & Wong, 2010 ).…”

Section: Internal Factors Of Plagiarismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Plagiarism: An Empirical Evidence of Business Students

Rusdi

Hussein

Rahman

et al. 2016

E-BPJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the education world places countless emphasis on achievement and success, the issue of academic dishonesty particularly involving plagiarism has reached prevalent extents especially in the institutions of higher learning. Since this contemporary problem in higher education requires very urgent attention to curb, various factors were assessed for their influence on students' degree of plagiarism act. Therefore, this paper focuses on the extent of the business students' self-perceived plagiarism and factors contributing to the act. A total of 152 questionnaires were collected from final year students of four business degree programs in one of a public university in Malaysia. Findings revealed that negative attitude, followed by competence lacking were the major contributors of self-perceived plagiarism. Discussion and significance of the study are further discussed.

show abstract

First‐year university science and engineering students’ understanding of plagiarism

Cited by 139 publications

References 16 publications

Implementing plagiarism awareness workshop to nursing faculty members, Damanhour University

Implementing plagiarism awareness workshop to nursing faculty members, Damanhour University

An Analysis of the Effect of Mobile Learning on Lebanese Higher Education

Plagiarism: An Empirical Evidence of Business Students

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About